Kia plans UK hybrids within three years, but favors hydrogen in long-term
Kia Borrego FCEV - Click above for high-res image gallery
Kia's first hybrid vehicle recently went on sale in the automaker's home market of Korea and, according to Simon Hetherington, Kia's UK marketing director, the company plans to launch a range of hybrid vehicles in the United Kingdom within three years. Interestingly, though, Kia doesn't necessarily see hybrids as the way of the future. Speaking to Channel 4, Hetherington said:
Kia is committed to bringing a range of new technologies to UK consumers as soon as is viable. It will not be too long before we have hybrid vehicles but we see this as a step on the way to a fuel-cell powered future. This is the real answer to the problem of automotive pollution – even fully electric cars just push the pollution problem further up the chain to the generators. Hydrogen offers a real long-term solution to the challenge of individual mobility coupled with environmental sustainability.Having driven the Kia Borrego FCEV ourselves, we know that the Korean automaker has come a long way toward realizing the goal of a practical hydrogen-powered vehicle. Of course, there remains a number of wide-ranging hurdles to overcome before hydrogen vehicles are ready for the market, not the least of which are finding efficient ways of capturing the energy carrier, storing it for future use and developing an infrastructure capable of supporting tens of thousands of vehicles. No problem, right?
Gallery: First Drive: Hyundai FCEV
[Source: Channel 4]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jon 3:02PM (7/18/2009)
"even fully electric cars just push the pollution problem further up the chain to the generators"
The same can be said of hydrogen. How it is produced and how it is transported is important.
Reply
Rick 3:04PM (7/18/2009)
okay - I'll bite.
All these smart car builders know something we don't. They know that hydrogen is the future and the worries will all be ironed out. Who are you gonna believe? - a bunch of wanabe BEV drivers or the brilliant ceo's who put their money where their mouths are - so to speak - and actually believe in build and perfect the FCEVs.
You know what - I don't get it but they know something I don't so thats it for me - hydrogen - bring it on.
unless maybe it some kind of scam...
Reply
BillySharps 3:28PM (7/18/2009)
Or maybe they think they can improve their company's green image by investing in hydrogen.
I actually laughed out loud when I read:
"...even fully electric cars just push the pollution problem further up the chain to the generators. Hydrogen offers a real long-term solution to the challenge of individual mobility coupled with environmental sustainability."
So electric cars push the pollution problem further up the chain, but hydrogen cars don't? Since when? Where do they think the hydrogen comes from? Fairies and rainbows?
In actual fact, hydrogen cars will require 2-3 times as much energy as battery electrics, so if the electricity comes from a polluting source, there will be 2-3 times as much pollution if you use hydrogen. Mr. Hetherington apparently does not understand physics.
Chris M 6:38PM (7/18/2009)
Well, it could be a case of "follow the leaders", where the government "Hydrogen Hyway" plan was to start H2FCV sales in 2015, so the big automakers with big H2 research grants all said "Yes, Sir, we'll do it in 2015", so their competition also said "Sure, in 2015", even though all of them are still far too costly, and probably still will be too expensive in 2015.
Or it could be a case of listening to H2 research engineers whose jobs depend on H2 development. They give the executives glowing reports about how much progress has been made and how close they are to breakthrough. They don't dare tell that it is far too expensive and cost cutting has slowed to a crawl, as the H2FC project would then be cancelled and they'd be out of a job.
Or maybe those executives have fallen for the Hydrogen Hype. Part of that hype pretends that electricity for EVs will come only from coal, but H2 will come only from nice clean renewables. Sorry, but both electricity and H2 are made using the exact same energy sources, including both fossil fuels and renewables. But to make H2 from renewable sources means making electricity first, and batteries are over 3x more efficient at storing electrical energy than the electrolysis/storage/fuel cell method. Batteries and chargers are 85% efficient, the combination of electrolysis, compression for storage, and fuel cell is only 24% efficient. Even if stationary batteries are used for electric energy storage and then used to charge an EV, that two stage process still is 72% efficient, still 3x the efficiency of H2. So why waste 2/3 of our limited supply of renewable source electricity on the less efficient H2 option?
But what about fossil fuels? With natural gas, it depends on what you are comparing. A "well to wheel" comparison of H2 from steam reformed natural gas and H2FCVs to electricity from the oldest, least efficient natural gas generators and EVs, the H2 route squeaks ahead, 28% vs. 25% efficiency for EVs. But if compared with the most efficient natural gas generators in operation, the GE H Cycle turbogenerators that achieve a remarkable 60% efficiency, the EVs win, 43% vs. 28% efficiency for the H2 route.
Only with steam reformed coal and oil does H2 have a consistent advantage, 28% vs. 25% efficiency, and that is a narrow advantage. Of course, if the H2 is made by electrolysis from electricity generated by burning fossil fuels, EVs has over 3x the efficiency advantage. It is not surprising that the official government "Hydrogen Hyway" plan is to produce almost all the H2 from steam reformed fossil fuels, with a vague promise of H2 from renewables "someday".
DasBoese 4:08AM (7/19/2009)
Blind belief in authority and lack of critical thinking is the single most dangerous thing in the world.
Normally it annoys and angers me, but seeing people actively embrace it makes me absolutely furious.
FFS you're posting on the internet, the single most comprehensive collection of knowledge in the history of mankind, accessible to almost anyone, instantly. All that's needed is the will to learn and a little of your precious time. The former every human is born with, the latter, admittedly, requires you to sacrifice a few minutes of watching TV or playing videogames every day. It's worth it you know.
Nozferat 4:29AM (7/19/2009)
BillySharps.
Hydrogen currently most definitely does not come from rainbows and fairies. But that is what most EV shills around here think electricity comes from. And that's the problem. Both technologies will be required some point down the road for different things.
Of course, if you want believe ChrisM's drivel about having to make electricity first to make H2, you have that choice. Fuel cells are not the only form of fuel production or use.
downtoearth 5:16AM (7/19/2009)
Rick:
> okay - I'll bite.
> All these smart car builders know something we don't.
>They know that hydrogen is the future and the worries
> will all be ironed out.
This might be just it: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5559
We may hit mineral scarcity necessary to manufacture battery chemistry on large, industrial scale. Maybe fuel cells will require less of those substances and therefore will be the only option viable despite obvious efficiency penalty when compared with a plug-in hybrid?
Sadly, the presentation does not evaluate how increased energy demand for mining and processing lower grade ore can influence commercial viability of rare elements extraction but this may be the trace for where all this hydrogen push comes from (and it's not a conspiracy theory rather harsh prediction of reality).
Chris M 8:59PM (7/19/2009)
Well, Noz, you've done it again, ignoring what I actually said and debating an imaginary opponent instead. After all, I did mention H2 production from steam reforming, which doesn't use electricity (except possibly for control equipment). But you do have to admit that to get H2 from wind, geothermal, hydro, or solar means making electricity, then using electrolysis. Before you start squawking "what about H2 from algae or solar photolysis", I must point out that those processes are purely experimental, with even lower efficiency and very poor yields, it is nowhere near ready, and it is unclear if it will ever be a practical source of H2. Besides, most forms of "solar photolysis" are using tiny solar cells that produce electricity, which then electrolyze the water.
I didn't mention the non-transportation uses for H2, as that was off-subject and irrelevant to the debate. As for the other transportation uses of H2 fuel:
H2 can be used to fuel internal combustion engines, but the bulky and expensive nature of H2 combined with the inefficiency inherent in IC engines makes for short driving ranges and very high fuel costs. Well to wheel efficiency is in the single digits. Finally, power and performance is drastically reduced. Overall, not a good idea.
H2 could be used to fuel jet engines, but again the bulky and expensive nture of H2 combined with the modest efficiency of gas turbines presents problems - either accept very short flight range, or use oversized tanks that dramatically increase drag or cut into passenger and cargo space. Of course, fuel costs also go up dramatically. Really not suitable for commercial use, though the Military, heedless of costs, might make some use of it.
H2 can be used for Really Big Rockets, where its high energy density by mass overrides its bulky nature, difficult handling, and high cost. Suitable for NASA, but not the general public.
Downtoearth: That article was interesting, but it doesn't go into the "battery vs. H2 fuel cell" debate. However, it does mention the platinum essential to PEM fuel cells that is extremely rare and of limited supply, and Lithium, which is much more common. Even though it does require more lithium for a LiIon battery than the amount of platinum needed for a fuel cell, the relative abundance of lithium and scarcity of platinum means that we can build a much larger fleet of LiIon plug-in cars than we could of H2 fuel cell cars. Moreover, the article lists several "elements of hope" that are considered to be so common and abundant and with low toxicity that they should not present any "scarcity" problem. At least two of those "elements of hope" can be used for high performance batteries.
gorr 6:28PM (7/18/2009)
Well, hydrogen fuelcell cars offer bigger performance and as much range as actual gasoline cars, and it cost less to built then gasoline cars. Each and every actual major car manufacturers have said that battery are not good in any respect and that they were ready for hydrogen fuelcell.
It cost 10 to 20 cents/gallon to make hydrogen at a service station so this market should become just a convenience to please consumers at convenience stores along the roads and in the neiboroods.
Im interrested to buy a fuelcell car. A simple windmill , very small at home plugged to a small water hydrogen electrolyser or solar panel can be installed at home for 1000$ to 2 000$ and can fuel all your cars, small trucks, lawn mowers, motorcycles, personnal watercrafts, refillable cigarette lighthers, b-b-q, home heating and swimming pool , small personnal helicopters, camping oven, You can maybe feed your neibors too.
But the best is to put this water electrolizer into the working devises to avoid the need to have a huge tank and take as long as 3 minutes to refuel. Just calculate how much less traffic will be on the road if everybody save 3 minutes on the road each weeks because they don't need to refuel.
Reply
BillySharps 6:34PM (7/18/2009)
Yay! Gorr is here! And he brought his delusions with him.
Chris M 6:48PM (7/18/2009)
Yep, we can always count on Gorr for a good laugh. Gorr apparently thinks that if he says it will be really cheap, then it will magically become really cheap! Never mind what the real costs are! Gorr says it, therefore it is! Fits right in with his delusions of grandeur.
Hmmm, sounds a bit like the H2 promoters...
dg 8:18PM (7/18/2009)
Dear Gorr,
You're an idiot.
BillySharps 11:49AM (7/19/2009)
>>"Hydrogen currently most definitely does not come from rainbows and fairies. But that is what most EV shills around here think electricity comes from. And that's the problem. Both technologies will be required some point down the road for different things."
I've never seen EV advocates on this site say that the electricity comes from nowhere. You'll have to back that up with some evidence. Any car that uses electricity for fuel will be using the same sources. I really doubt we'll have any FCV for sale any time soon. There's just no advantage, and too many disadvantages.
>>"Of course, if you want believe ChrisM's drivel about having to make electricity first to make H2, you have that choice. Fuel cells are not the only form of fuel production or use."
What are you trying to say here? That you don't need electricity to make hydrogen? Are you referring to steam reformation? You are correct that hydrogen can be burned in an ordinary internal combustion engine, but it's much less efficient and pretty stupid to try because of all the effort spent creating hydrogen, compressing it, transporting it, and storing it.
Please try to start making some sense.
Reply
GoodCheer 12:06PM (7/19/2009)
I have to think that car makers prefer fuel cells for 2 reasons:
1) System cost: The car makers do not consider the whole cost of the system... only the cost of building cars. The astronomical costs of building hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure (compared to the relative pittance to upgrade electrical distribution) are, for the automakers, -someone else's problem-. I suspect they think the cost of fuel cells will drop faster than the cost of batteries (despite the likes of Ballard giving up on automotive fuel cells).
2) Conservatism: Huge companies innovate with the speed of turnover on their board of directors. The idea of producing something that 'challenges' their customer, even the farcically trivial challenge of plugging in your car when you get home after work, is terrifying to them. Asking their clients to go to fueling stations (as they do now) and buying fuel that gets there somehow (as they do now) is far less scary.
Reply
paulwesterberg 11:13AM (7/20/2009)
And yet all kids these days have cell phones and ipods and somehow they remember to keep them topped off while texting all day long. The iphone battery is small and light and had enough juice to run a small computer for days.
Now it isn't a question of "If batteries can power cars", it it just a question of "How much will it cost?" And costs will come down as large battery factories come online.
Alan 2:34PM (7/19/2009)
I wonder how many years it will be before car makers stop making drivel statements such as this. There was ony one good reason to research hydrogen vehicles, and that was to get round the problem of battery capacity, now it may be that battery capacity will get stuck around where it is now in which case hydrogen may well be useful as an energy carrier for long range/high power vehicles, but to argue that hydrogen is 'greener' than pure EV, I take this to mean more efficient well-to-wheel, simply isn't true, has never been true and can never be true.
Reply
russellgeister 8:05PM (7/19/2009)
personally the idea of a h2 powered vehical scares me has anyone seen the results of an lpg exsplosion in a car i have lets put it this way noone survived and people like gorr want to acctually make and store this shit at there house.h2 i mean its even more explosive than lpg i can see houses everywhere disapearing in blinding flashes beacuse the monkey that lives there decided to do a little home tinkering my personal opinion is that b100 and ev's are the future.
Reply